Setting the Record Straight

Commentary by Paul LaViolette countering misstatements
of fact
and outright lies that have circulated about him in the press

1. Paul LaViolette is not a "cold fusion" devotee.

Curt Suplee's Washington
Post article about me (Wednesday,
8/23/00, Section A, p. 23) was entitled "EEOC Backs
'Cold Fusion' Devotee." To refer to me as a "cold
fusion" devotee is a bit misleading. Cold fusion is
one of many emerging cutting edge technologies that I have an
interest in. But it is not the main area of focus of my
work and I don't claim any detailed expertise in the subject.
The phrase "cold fusion devotee" suggests to most people
someone who has an unswerving faith in cold fusion. But,
in truth, I maintain an objective stance on the subject. I base
my opinions about it on supporting experimental evidence, and
my conclusions are subject to change as new evidence presents
itself. Currently, I consider that the evidence very much
favors the view that cold fusion is a real phenomenon. This
does not make me a devotee.

2. Paul LaViolette was not recruited by Tom Valone to his Patent
Office job, nor
did he "infiltrate" the Patent Office to bring in ideas
favoring "fringe science."

This fabrication was originally disseminated by Science
magazine (article by David Voss),
and repeated by the American Physical Society (Robert Park's news
column),
and the Washington Post (Curt Suplee's article).

In his Washington Post article about
me Curt Suplee states:

"[LaViolette] joined the PTO following
an Internet appeal by patent examiner Thomas Valone, who in 1998
called for 'all able-bodied free energy technologists' to 'infiltrate'
the agency, according to published reports."

This incorrect statement had been
previously repeated in several other news media. For example
in March 1999 Robert Park wrote in his "What's New"
internet news column sponsored by the American Physical Society:

[Integrity Research institute] is headed by
a US Patent Examiner named Tom Valone, who has been recruiting
other open-minded people to become Patent Examiners (WN 20 Nov
98).

The citation that Park places at the end of this sentence refers
to his November 1998 posting in which he made fun of the Patent
Office for hiring me.

Shortly after this March posting I was fired
from my job.

Later, in May 1999 David Voss wrote a slanted
and inaccurate Science magazine article in which he stated:

In fact, I never told Voss that
"Valone helped to recruit" me. What Voss wrote was
incorrect. He was apparently reporting Park's statements
about me. Voss could instead have stated that "Robert
Park claims that Valone helped recruit LaViolette," but
Robert Park was in fact wrong!

Also in May, three days after
Voss' article appeared, Park wrote in his "What's New"
internet news column:

"WN [What's New] has been warning for
some time about efforts to infiltrate the Patent Office with
examiners sympathetic to fringe science (WN 20 Nov 98)."

Here, again, Park cited his defamatory
posting about me being hired by the Patent Office, further distorting
the lie that had been repeated earlier in Science magazine.
He here not only claims that Valone recruited me, but also
that I was supposedly part of an effort to "infiltrate"
the Patent Office.

For those who are interested to
know the truth, here is what really happened.

On February 2, 1998 Tom Valone
indeed had mailed and faxed an announcement to a few of his friends
informing "all able-bodied free energy technologists"
that the Patent Office was actively hiring people and urging
them to take advantage of this opportunity to "infiltrate
the Patent Office" (a figure of speech). Some of these
people later circulated his letter, and it ended up being posted
on the internet. Valone did not himself place this appeal on
the internet as the article seems to imply. However, let
me make clear, I never received or saw that letter, nor did I
view it on the internet. I did not even know that it existed
until after I began work at the PTO.

Contrary to what Park, Voss, and
Suplee write, I was not recruited by Tom Valone to my job at
the Patent Office. In May 1998 Tom did call me, but that
was to ask me to send him a review copy of my book Earth
Under Fire. After discussing that matter of business,
I proceeded to tell him how I had been busily looking for work
in localities to the south and east of me since jobs were then
scarce in my hometown of Schenectady. Tom responded to
this telling me of the job opportunity in Washington at the Patent
Office. I initiated the discussion of job hunting, and
Tom, being a good friend of mine, responded with the suggestion
to look for work at the Patent Office. How as a friend
could he have not told me of the opportunity? He did not
mention his recruiting letter or suggest to me that I "infiltrate"
the Patent Office. Conspiracy theorists often try to twist facts
to suit their theory. Sorry, to pop their bubble. The
truth is that I did not apply for the Patent Office job with
the intention of changing the Patent Office's antiquated views
on energy technology or for any other reason "subversive
to the American Physical Society's sacrosanct scientific dogma.
My interest was simply to earn a descent living. Is this
not what the "American Dream" is all about? I
was looking for work, this was a job I was qualified for, I applied,
and subsequently I was hired. It is simple as that. So
I hope this puts to rest this infiltration fiasco.

By the way, in a Patent Office
hearing in regard to his "recruitment letter" Sydney
Rose (of PTO Employee Relations) had asked Valone: "What
do you mean by "infiltrate." Valone had responded:
"to become a member of the Patent Office." It
seems that PTO officials don't have a very well developed sense
of humor. Did they really believe that Valone was organizing
a subversive overthrow of the Patent Office? Ironically,
none of the people who had received Valone's announcement ever
followed up to apply for a job at the Patent Office. So this
infiltration claim is all much ado about nothing.

3. Paul LaViolette didindeed issue patents while
he was working at the Patent Office.

In his May 1999 Science
magazine article, David Voss incorrectly wrote:

"He [LaViolette] did not issue any patents during
his short tenure."

This is completely incorrect. I worked on numerous patent applications
during my short stay with the Patent Office, and of these I allowed
4 patents which eventually issued.

4. Paul LaViolette did not issue any patents
on cold fusion technologynor did he issue any patents on "dubious" technologies.

In August 2000, one internet
news tabloid operated by the Microsoft Corp. carried several
slanted stories about me. The reporter, who exhibited a decided
anti-cold fusion bias, wrote:

"A logical suspicion is that LaViolette was
handing out patents for dubious cold-fusion technologies."

This is a total fabrication. The art area that I was working
in at the Patent Office was not concerned with energy inventions,
whether they be cold fusion based or otherwise. Furthermore
cold fusion does not in my opinion fall under the category of
"dubious technologies;" I consider it a very legitimate
endeavor. But more importantly, I find exceedingly offensive
this tabloid's innuendo that I would be handing out patents for
"dubious" technologies. Its reporter here
implies that either I was incompetent and reckless at my work
or was willfully breaking the law by issuing patents for inventions
that don't really work. People who know me know that
I am a discriminative thinker and very careful about the conclusions
I draw, whether they be in regard to my scientific research or
my work at the Patent Office. Also people will attest
that I am a very honest person and would not intentionally break
the law.

5. Paul LaViolette's religion is not astrology!

This same above mentioned Microsoft
internet tabloid printed another lie when it said:

"According to a recent profile in Washington City Paper,
LaViolette's religion is astrology."

This is a total fabrication. The Washington City Paper
cover story about me never stated this, nor did they imply it.
After initially reading the Washington Post article
on the EEOC decision, the tabloid reporter called me up and asked
me to give him some statement as to what my religion was. I
told him that I did not wish to disclose to him my religious
beliefs because I feel that a person's religious beliefs are
a private matter. Also I had legal reasons since at that time
my Civil Rights case had not been completed. Apparently,
determined that he would write something about my religious views,
he fabricated the above quote, which was apparently intended
to give the reader the impression that I held very strange religious
beliefs. I don't know of any organized religion called
"astrology" and I think that even most dedicated astrologers
would have found this statement insulting.

The Washington City Paper did write
"LaViolette is a religious man, praying and meditating often.
He wears a gold necklace around his neck given to him by
his mother. It's his astrological sign; Scorpio."
Perhaps the tabloid reporter, desperate to make a religious
connection, inferred that because I wear a necklace with my astrological
sign that this automatically meant that astrology was my religion. Or,
could it have been the passage mistakenly stating that I had
taken a course in astrology. Actually, it was in fact a
course on the Tarot that I had taken. So, just because
you take a course in something does that make it your religion? In
business school I took a course in economics. Is then
economics my religion too?

In fact, none of my books or theories
concern themselves with natal astrology, which is the conventional
meaning of the term "astrology." Two of my books,
Beyond the Big Bang
and Earth Under Fire,
study the archetypal symbolism of the myths and lore associated
with the zodiac constellations. But this is better
categorized as archeoastronomy. It is not concerned
at all with whether people's personalities are astrologically
determined at the time of birth.

6. Paul LaViolette did not say that his scientific beliefs
can't be separated from his religious beliefs.

This same internet tabloid wrote:

"Paul LaViolette says his scientific
beliefs can't be separated from his religious beliefs."

I never stated that. The Washington Post did quote
me as stating, "There is a connection between my scientific
beliefs and my very deep religious beliefs." Although
I admit that there is a connection between the two, this does
not mean that the two can't be distinguished. What the tabloid
wrote is solely the conjecture of the reporter, not anything
that I stated.

7. Paul LaViolette did not argue that his belief in cold fusion
constituted,
or was somehow congruent with, belief in a Supreme Being.

The internet tabloid wrote:

"In essence, LaViolette argued that his belief in
cold fusion -- the doctrine, widely disparaged by mainstream
scientists, that energy can be generated inexpensively at low
temperatures through fusion of hydrogen or deuterium nuclei --
constituted, or was somehow congruent with, belief in a Supreme
Being."

This inaccurately construes the essence
of my argument. The EEOC decision interpreted my argument
as claiming that "my unconventional beliefs about cold fusion
and other technologies should be viewed as a religion
and therefore protected." Also they say that I argue
that I was "terminated and denied the opportunity to be
rehired because of religion, which embodies [my] cold
fusion beliefs." Though, for legal reasons I do not
wish to elaborate here as to how religion embodies these beliefs
or as to how my beliefs about these technologies might be viewed
as a religion. Also, to clear up another inaccurate
statement, my initial complaint to the Office of Civil Rights
did not mention anything about discrimination on the basis of
religion.

8. Paul LaViolette's scientific beliefs are based on observation
and subject to change based on new findings.

The internet tabloid claimed
that I had said:

"A lot of people normally associate religious belief
with doctrinaire belief, something unchanging. Mine are
based on observation and subject to change based on new findings."

This is an excerpt taken out of context from the Washington
Post article. The word "mine" refers to "scientific
beliefs" in an earlier quoted sentence, not reproduced by
the tabloid. Hence the correct quote should state: "My
scientific beliefs are based on observation and subject to change
based on new findings."